Ms. Tett, in her essay, forgets, or simply leaves unmentioned, the use of Stuxnet by the US against Iran:

Stuxnet is a malicious computer worm, first uncovered in 2010. Thought to have been in development since at least 2005, Stuxnet targets SCADA systems and is believed to be responsible for causing substantial damage to Iran’s nuclear program. Although neither country has openly admitted responsibility, the worm is believed to be a jointly built American/Israeli cyberweapon.[1][2]

…

Ralph Langner, the researcher who identified that Stuxnet infected PLCs,[19] first speculated publicly in September 2010 that the malware was of Israeli origin, and that it targeted Iranian nuclear facilities.[80] However Langner more recently, in a TED Talk recorded in February 2011, stated that, “My opinion is that the Mossad is involved, but that the leading force is not Israel. The leading force behind Stuxnet is the cyber superpower – there is only one; and that’s the United States.”[81] Kevin Hogan, Senior Director of Security Response at Symantec, reported that the majority of infected systems were in Iran (about 60%),[82] which has led to speculation that it may have been deliberately targeting “high-value infrastructure” in Iran[21] including either the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant or the Natanz nuclear facility.[51][83][84] Langner called the malware “a one-shot weapon” and said that the intended target was probably hit,[85] although he admitted this was speculation.[51] Another German researcher and spokesman of the German-based Chaos Computer Club, Frank Rieger, was the first to speculate that Natanz was the target.[36]

This idea was explored–and castigated–in a previous analysis for Law&Crimehere. Basically, Mueller’s team has proposed the theoretical possibility of Concord Management viewing discovery materials under inarguably burdensome conditions. Such conditions, Dubelier maintains, would jeopardize the defense’s entire case because, under Mueller’s proposal, defense counsel could only inspect such documents by huddling together with government attorneys.

Summing up the memo’s overall argument, Dublier notes, “Defendant Concord has voluntarily appeared in Court and is entitled to discovery. The Special Counsel concedes as much, yet has produced no case authority from this circuit to support a blanket protective order covering ten million pages of discovery, nor has he produced any out of circuit authority that is persuasive. Instead, the Special Counsel ignored law from this district rejecting this concept.”

Dubelier also accuses of Mueller lying to the court about what both sides have agreed to so far. After this filing, though, it’s safe to say that no accusations of agreement are likely to be flung anytime soon.

In sum, Ms. Tett becomes an advocate for a kind of ‘Cyber Vigilantism’ , in the face of her argued American institutional paralysis, that doesn’t quite speak to American/Israeli co-operation in the development of Stuxnet a ‘malicious computer worm‘ , and its use by America in its cyber attack on Iran’s centrifuges. This quotation is just part of her argument:

…

Is this crazy? Many US officials would claim that it is and go on to point out that Watts no longer works for the FBI. But before anyone dismisses this whole idea, I have heard many leading figures in Silicon Valley furtively express similar views. Indeed, some appear to be quietly funding civilian “volunteers” to do exactly what Watts suggests: namely, hunt for ways to counter Russian attacks by infiltrating enemy cyber groups.

Who knows whether this type of grass-roots action will work, or how widespread it might be — everything is deeply murky in the arena of cyberspace and information wars.

Ms. Tett showed in her essay ‘a debt to history ?’ an honesty and integrity that I regret to say is missing from this extemporizing on the current, not to speak of rampant, political hysteria.

Political Observer

StephenKMackSD

@Bulwark @StephenKMackSD Thank you for your comment. Your distinction between “information warfare” and “cyber warfare” is a distinction without a different, as you argue it. Reads like apologetic propaganda employed by American National Security State actors as the-in-order-too of obfuscation.

On your confusion about my second citation: Mueller wasn’t able to control and direct the ‘discovery process’ as he would have like in the Russian Troll Farm case:

‘This idea was explored–and castigated–in a previous analysis for Law&Crime here. Basically, Mueller’s team has proposed the theoretical possibility of Concord Management viewing discovery materials under inarguably burdensome conditions. Such conditions, Dubelier maintains, would jeopardize the defense’s entire case because, under Mueller’s proposal, defense counsel could only inspect such documents by huddling together with government attorneys. Summing up the memo’s overall argument, Dublier notes, “Defendant Concord has voluntarily appeared in Court and is entitled to discovery. The Special Counsel concedes as much, yet has produced no case authority from this circuit to support a blanket protective order covering ten million pages of discovery, nor has he produced any out of circuit authority that is persuasive. Instead, the Special Counsel ignored law from this district rejecting this concept.” Dubelier also accuses of Mueller lying to the court about what both sides have agreed to so far. After this filing, though, it’s safe to say that no accusations of agreement are likely to be flung anytime soon.’

Thank you for your comment. The ‘Cyber War’ waged by indited ‘Russian Trolls’ and the ‘Russian Security Officers‘ named by Mueller, are utterly relevant to the vexing question of America’s incompetence at waging ‘Cyber War’, as argued by Ms. Tett, via her expert on the question. This Tett essay has a definite political context, although that complexity is unwelcome to you!

These ‘Trolls’ hacked an American Election via Facebook ads, after the election?Or RT’s commentaries? This is Key-Stone Cops low comedy. Why did CrowdStrike rather than the FBI investigate the Clinton servers? If this was in fact an Attack on American Democracy, National Security concerns would demand that the FBI should have seized the Clinton Servers and its computers, but they weren’t !

Stuxnet was used in a Cyber attack by America that targeted Iranian nuclear facilities.This does not indicate ‘incompetence’ at ‘Cyber Warfare’! The ‘premise’ of Ms. Tett’s propaganda piece was to cast Americans as amateurs in ‘Cyber Warfare’ : that is the very premise of her essay, yet Stuxnet is one of the prime examples of American expertise on the practice of this ‘warfare’.

On the question of ‘weaponized social media’ which echoes the blundering propaganda of Brennan and Clapper: just look at the manufactured hysteria that has evolved on Twitter, and the coterie of MSNBC hacks, endlessly repeating Anti-Russian propaganda, and degradation of the notion of Treason by Trump’s many enemies, as facts, as the triumph of ‘weaponized social media’ !